This paper critiques the analysis phase of the ADDIE model of instructional

design and development as illustrated in figure 2-1. The title of the book
th
is Principles of Instructional Design (5 edition). The book’s co authors
are Robert M. Gagne, Walter W. Wager, Katherine C. Golas and John M.
Keller.

The above authors present the ADDIE model as one of the most
systematic models of instructional design and development. This model
has five basic steps or processes that are essential in designing
instructional systems.

Analysis is the first phase of the five phases. The purpose of the phase is
to determine instructional requirements. The four other phases are
namely: Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. The
analysis phase has four sub components outlined as follows for simplicity:
Needs analysis, Instructional analysis, Pre-entry skills analysis and
Resource analysis.

The needs analysis stage assesses the context to establish if there is a

short fall between the expected output and the actual output. The
question to ask is, “Is there a gap in results or is there a discrepancy in
the final product of the instruction system”? This stage may also be
referred to as the gap analysis stage. The existing gap between the
problem and the solution is studied. A statement of the problem is then
drawn. Once the problem has been identified, the problem is defined. A
clear statement of the problem is necessary. Wilmot (2007).

The statement of the problem or needs table should underline, highlight

and expose how the instructional system should be designed. In designing
the instructional system purpose, importance, social needs, expectations,
personal development, pre requisite courses, examples, duration and
practices are considered. The above summarises some of the external
events and internal events that should be embedded and manipulated in
the learners’ world for the learning outcomes to be met.
The question of what skills, knowledge and attitudes a learner should have
at course graduation is done during Instructional analysis. Professional
and course standards are looked at. Classification of tasks helps to
determine the course and professional standards. The tasks cover the
Bloom’s cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains and Gagne’s sub
domains. Gagne’, Wager, Golas & Keller (2005)

The instructional analysis sub phase results in the production of a down

flowing diagram (FLOWCHART) yet it is read bottom up to show how
learning outcomes lead to domains and to the course units. It takes the
form of a mind map and is referred to as an Instructional Curriculum Map
(ICM).

The third sub stage focuses on required previous knowledge or required

prior learning (RPL). This is an entry behavior analysis. It addresses the
question what skills, motivation and characteristics form the entry
requirements. In other words, what sort of output is required to be input
for the instructional system?

A contextual analysis is the last sub stage. It completes the analysis

phase of the ADDIE model. The education milieu is studied carefully,
critically and analytically to note and underline conditions that are a
cultural capital to the learner. Information on timeline, budget, capital
needs, resources, purpose, and nature is then provided.

The authors’ main point with regard to the analysis phase of the ADDIE
model is to illustrate that the process of Instructional design and
development is not like a mechanistic exchange of goods and services but
follows a predetermined pattern of activities. The process is not carried
out abruptly but is a formal process, carefully researched, well
differentiated and is easily discriminated from trial and error approaches.

While it is clear that there is glaring evidence that this model is indeed
somewhat linear, there is no evidence or less evidence that characterise it
as human or at least considerate of the feelings of man. You can not talk
about a systematic or a linear process when man is involved. Man is
human and is not an inanimate object.

There is no evidence to persuade one to believe that the analysis stage as

the first sub phase does consider the feelings of the learner about being
analysed. Is there an ethics clearance? Where, how and when does the
instructor, the designer, the developer get an ethics clearance in the
process of Instructional System Design (ISD)

The analysis stage of this model assumes that the learner as one of the
components of the Instructional system design other than the content and
the trainer lives in a vacuum. What about incidental learning? Does it
mean learners can not engage with the content without the trainer? So
they have to wait for the process of Instructional system design to be
finalized before the learner can engage with the content. Kuhn (2009).

According to Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (2007) analysis is a general

term that refers to a systematic examination of the nature or cause of
something. Assessment is one single word that fully explains what is
happening in this ADDIE model stage. There is a needs assessment,
time assessment, skills assessment and resource assessment.

Is there a difference between examination, evaluation and assessment?

To assess is to evaluate. Shepard (2005).

Why is this stage not referred to as the evaluation stage?

Why is this stage called analysis? Most of what happens during this stage
is assessment and to assess is to evaluate. The model gives the
impression that once you reach evaluation the process of instructional
design and development has achieved its goals. Yet it is not the case. It is
therefore not surprising that the model is somewhat linear yet the ISD
process can easily be seen that it is by nature not linear but cyclical and
spiral as can be seen on figure 2-4. In this way the process starts and
begins where it has ended.
The output for one stage becomes the input for the next stage. The model
should start with evaluation and end at evaluation.

It is also worth noting that the authors themselves admit that the ADDIE
model is a prototypical representation of the process of ISD. This means
that it is not a perfect illustration of the process of ISD. The labeling of the
first stage as evaluation can not be made an issue so long as one
understands that a lot of assessment is taking place during this stage.

In their own words the authors refer to this model as generic. The idea of
referring to the first stage as analysis presupposes that the evaluation
instruments used in this initial stage are not used during the final stage. If
so why is that? It is not logical to use different instruments during analysis
and evaluation? How is quality assurance achieved when the process of
ISD begins with analysis instead of evaluation?

Analysis could be looked at as a reconnaissance survey in the civil

engineering world. The product of a survey is usually an index diagram
which may omit or leave out the instructor from the picture yet he is part
of the education milieu of the learner. This alludes to the fact that
incidental learning does take place during the analysis phase. The
instructor in this case may play a similar role that is played by a
contravening or extraneous or intervening variable in the process of
research.

Is it possible to collect valid data with which to do the analysis without

intruding the learner’s world? Embedding the instructor in the learner’s
world during the analysis phase in the process of instructional design and
development makes him or her an external event. It also beats the mind
how the instructor can study the learner without incidental learning taking
place. As the instructor is “arranged” or “embedded” in the learners world
and getting ready to do the analysis she brings with her values. As the
learner interacts with the instructor in what is suppose to be an analysis
the content in the form of values is transferred and that means incidental
learning is taking place.

References

Kuhn, T. (2007) Instructional Design and Development: Unpublished

study guide. Department of Curriculum Studies. Faculty of Education.
University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Gagne’, R.M.Wager W.W, Golas K.C & Keller. (2005) Principles of

Instructional Design.Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Shepard, L.A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding.

Educational leadership, 63 (3), 66-70.

Wilmot, P.D. (2007) Formative assessment: Unpublished course notes.

Education department. Rhodes University, Grahams town.